In an age when U.S. power can be projected through private mercenary
armies and unmanned Predator drones, the U.S. military need no longer
rely on massive, conventional ground forces to pursue its imperial
agenda, a fact President Barack Obama is now acknowledging. But make no
mistake: while the tactics may be changing, the U.S. taxpayer -- and poor
foreigners abroad -- will still be saddled with overblown military
budgets and militaristic policies.

Speaking January 5 alongside his Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the president announced
a shift in strategy for the American military, one that emphasizes
aerial campaigns and proxy wars as opposed to "long-term nation-building
with large military footprints." This, to some pundits and politicians,
is considered a tectonic shift.

Indeed, the way some on the left tell it, the strategy marks a
radical departure from the imperial status quo. "Obama just repudiated
the past decade of forever war policy," gushedRolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings, calling the new strategy a "[s]lap in the face to the generals."

Conservative hawks, meanwhile, predictably declared that the sky is
falling. "This is a lead-from-behind strategy for a left-behind
America," cried
hyperventilating California Republican Buck McKeon, chairman of the House
Armed Services Committee. "This strategy ensures American decline in
exchange for more failed domestic programs." In McKeon's world, feeding
the war machine is preferable to feeding poor people.

- Advertisement -

Unfortunately, though, rather than renouncing empire and endless war, Obama's stated strategy
for the military going forward just reaffirms the U.S. commitment to
both. Rather than renouncing the last decade of war, it states that the
bloody and disastrous occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan -- gently
termed "extended operations" -- were pursued "to bring stability to those
countries."

And Leon Panetta assured the American public
that even with the changes, the U.S. would still be able to fight two
major wars at the same time -- and win. And Obama assured America's
military contractors and coffin makers that their lifeline -- U.S.
taxpayers' money -- would still be funneled their way in obscene bucket
loads.

"Over the next 10 years, the growth in the defense budget will slow,"
the president told reporters, "but the fact of the matter is this: It
will still grow." In fact, he added with a touch of pride, it "will
still be larger than it was toward the end of the Bush administration,"
totaling more than $700 billion a year and accounting for about half of the average American's income tax. So much for the Pentagon's budget being slashed -- like we were promised -- the way lawmakers are trying to cut those "failed domestic programs."

- Advertisement -

The U.S. could cut its military spending in half tomorrow and still
spend more than three times as much as its next nearest rival, China.
That's because China, instead of waging wars of choice around the world,
prefers projecting its might by investing in its own country. On the
other hand, the U.S. under the leadership of Obama is beefing up its
military presence in China's backyard, more interested in projecting its
dwindling power than rebuilding its economy.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower once noted
that every dollar going to the military is a dollar that can't be used
to provide food and shelter for those in need. Today's obscene amount of
military spending isn't necessary if the administration wished to
pursue the quaint goal of simply defending the country from invasion.
Maintaining "the best-trained, best-equipped military in history," as
Obama says is his goal? That's a different story -- for a different
purpose. Indeed, as Madeline Albright observed,
possessing that kind of military might is no fun if you don't get to
use it, as Obama has with gusto in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen,
Somalia, Libya and Uganda.

The truth is that the Obama administration's "new" strategy is more
of the same -- a reaffirmation of the U.S. government's commitment to
militarism for the all the usual reasons: to promote American hegemony
and, by extension, the interests of politically connected capital. And
U.S. officials aren't shy about that.

Indeed, throughout the strategy document the ostensible purpose for
having a military -- to provide national security -- repeatedly takes a
back seat to promoting the economic interests of the U.S. elite that
profits from empire. Repositioning U.S. forces "toward the Asia-Pacific
region," for instance -- including the stationing of American soldiers in
that hotbed of violent extremism, Australia
-- is cast not just as a means of ensuring peace and stability, but
guaranteeing "the free flow of commerce." Maintaining a global empire of
bases from Europe to Okinawa isn't necessary for self-defense, but
according to Obama, ensuring -- with guns -- "the prosperity that flows
from an open and free international economic system."

Of course, that economic considerations shape U.S. foreign policy is
nothing new. More than 25 years ago, President Jimmy Carter -- yes, that Jimmy
Carter -- declared
in a State of the Union address that U.S. military force would be
employed in the Persian Gulf, not for the cause of peace, freedom and
apple pie, but to ensure "the free movement of Middle East oil." And so
it goes.

Far from affecting change, Obama is ensuring continuity. "U.S. policy
will emphasize Gulf security," states his new military strategy, in
order to "prevent Iran's development of a nuclear weapon capability and
counter its destabilizing policies" -- as if it's Iran that has been
destabilizing the region. And as Obama publicly proclaims his support
for "political and economic reform" in the Middle East, just like every
other U.S. president he not-so-privately backs their oppressors from
Bahrain to Yemen and signs off on the biggest weapons deal in history to that bastion of democracy, Saudi Arabia.

- Advertisement -

Obama can talk all he wants about turning the page on a decade of war
and occupation, but so long as he continues to fight wars and military
occupy countries on the other side of the globe, talk is all it is. The
facts, sadly, are this: since taking office Obama doubled the number of
troops in Afghanistan; he fought to extend the U.S. occupation in Iraq --
and partially succeeded; he dramatically expanded the use of killer drones from Pakistan to Somalia; and he requested military budgets
that would make George W. Bush blush. If you want to see what his
military strategy really is, forget what's said at press conferences and
in turgidly written Pentagon press releases. Just look at the record.

*CharlesDavis
has covered Capitol Hill for public radio and the international news
wire Inter Press Service. More of his work may be found on his website.